Author Topic: SETI at HOME Enhanced V6.09 (CUDA 23) (Read 30959 times)

perryjay · « **on:** 11 Dec 2009, 12:33:06 pm »

Will this be added to the installer app-info anytime soon or could someone show me what I would have to add in? I'm really good at messing up my app-info when I try to do it myself! :-)

Jason G · « **Reply #1 on:** 12 Dec 2009, 05:09:01 am »

Quote from: perryjay on 11 Dec 2009, 12:33:06 pm

Will this be added to the installer app-info anytime soon or could someone show me what I would have to add in? I'm really good at messing up my app-info when I try to do it myself! :-)

Hi there. No app_info mods required. Just drop the new DLLs over the old ones in the setiathome project folder. A revised installer will likely eventually use 2.3 as baseline install, but other improvements to applications are in progress, so updating that isn't a priority at the moment, since the current version works as baseline, for advanced users to optionally tweak.

The 2.3DLLs offer a high degree of improved performance over 2.2 ones. If, however, you aren't entirely aware or confident with the possible ramifications of switching the DLLs out (pushing things harder), or what you were doing and why, I'd normally probably advise against it ... Since you've come here to enquire about the right way to go about things, I'd say give it a go (swapping the DLLs in which is actually easy), If you break it you own both parts

.

Richard Haselgrove · « **Reply #2 on:** 12 Dec 2009, 08:29:23 am »

Jason,

Would you happen to know whether the v6.09 application (presumably the one installed at Beta on 13 August) actually contains any code updates of any significance, or is this just a fudge to allow automatic distribution of the 2.3 DLLs to hosts with adequate drivers/BOINC versions?

If there's no significant application change (even bug-fixes), as I suspect, we can safely say that it makes no difference at all to people already using optimised applications - who are already able to drop in the 2.3 DLLs if they are using a recent-enough driver.

perryjay · « **Reply #3 on:** 12 Dec 2009, 10:52:56 am »

Thanks guys. I had already swapped in the 2.3 DLLs in but was also thinking there might have been some extra changes in the 6.09 build. A case of you never know until you ask

Jason G · « **Reply #4 on:** 12 Dec 2009, 12:48:06 pm »

Quote from: Richard Haselgrove on 12 Dec 2009, 08:29:23 am

Jason,

Would you happen to know whether the v6.09 application (presumably the one installed at Beta on 13 August) actually contains any code updates of any significance, or is this just a fudge to allow automatic distribution of the 2.3 DLLs to hosts with adequate drivers/BOINC versions?

If there's no significant application change (even bug-fixes), as I suspect, we can safely say that it makes no difference at all to people already using optimised applications - who are already able to drop in the 2.3 DLLs if they are using a recent-enough driver.

A quick look a while back told me nothing of consequence, though I've been occupied lately with other things. Will need to chase up the Berkeley svn adresses again to look, when I get around to it.

Jason

[Later:] Listing observed changes in 6.09 checkin, which is a bulk one dated 18th August 2009, Joe's fixes to fllops counting date after that 26th August 09 :
- some addition of a preprocessor directive to anyalyzefuncs, to allow turning on/off locking affinity to a single core in build
- changed Cuda DLLs
- Some changes to logging output
- some removal of syncronisation in soem puslefind kernels ( I beleive we already did this, but will check)

So apparently no, AFAICT no specific changes to make 2.3 work, or make them work differently.

Claggy · « **Reply #5 on:** 14 Dec 2009, 04:30:21 pm »

Does the Lunatics' Unified Installer v0.2 still work when a user already has Stock Seti 6.09 Wu's in his Cache?,
They'll be branded as 6.09, will the installer put in 6.09 entries in the app_info?

Claggy

Jason G · « **Reply #6 on:** 14 Dec 2009, 10:32:32 pm »

The apps still 'work' since tasks are the same, though as noted task cache will need to be drained first, since stock app is marking work differently. I'm in the process of working things out for an updated installer. Probably it would help speed things along nicely if someone could test the following method going from stock 6.09 cuda plan class cuda23:

Before restarting Boinc:
- go in and edit the applicable '.aistub' files to include 6.09 entries and duplicate app version entries for the cuda23 plan class.
- if a 64 bit system, also change/add app version to have a paltform tag 'windows_intelx86' and another of the same version for 'windows_x86_64'
- run the aimerge command

Double check the resulting joined app info has:
- app version entries of both cuda and cuda23 plan class, in both 6.08 & 6.09 variants
- entries for both platform types, if on a x64 system
- 0n x64 That would amount to two plan classes X two versions X 2 platforms = 8 app version blocks
- On x86 That would amount to two plan classes X two versions = 4 app version blocks
- For the CPU app on x64 (6.03) put the duplicate app version bloxks also = 2 app version blocks, on x64
- AstroPulse same deal with x64 ( 2 app version blocks for 5.05, with different platform tags)
- Then start Boinc and see if any tasks are dumped.

I appreciate this would be a difficult migration process to acheive by hand, so will expedite getting my installer development back up and running ASAP (after a painful Win7 migration and loss of a hard drive, requiring retreival of much stuff from backups, ongoing process. ).

Jason

Claggy · « **Reply #7 on:** 15 Dec 2009, 04:55:48 am »

I warned a user on Seti yesterday that he might loose all his Cuda tasks as i didn't think the Installer would put 6.09 entries in the app_info,
he went ahead, and after he'd finally restarted Boinc, he did loose all this Cuda Wu's,
i haven't got the heart to tell him he should detach/reattach to free up all those Cuda wu that wont expire until 1st Feb '10,
then install the apps again.

Claggy

BMaytum · « **Reply #8 on:** 14 Jan 2010, 10:11:38 pm »

Quote from: Jason G on 14 Dec 2009, 10:32:32 pm

...
I appreciate this would be a difficult migration process to acheive by hand, so will expedite getting my installer development back up and running ASAP (after a painful Win7 migration and loss of a hard drive, requiring retreival of much stuff from backups, ongoing process. ).

Jason

Jason:

Sorry for the painful rebuild following your hard drive death. I've migrated to Win7 Pro x64 (bit painful from XP) without any untoward damage. As for your testing request, I'm unqualified I fear ("aimerge" huh?). But it's now a new decade so I'm wondering how you're doing with an updated installer that will include optimized 6.09 Cuda?

[BTW I use a small 0.25 day cache so for me its no problem to drain it down prior to running your installer].

Pappa · « **Reply #9 on:** 15 Jan 2010, 12:54:13 am »

Quote from: BMaytum on 14 Jan 2010, 10:11:38 pm

Quote from: Jason G on 14 Dec 2009, 10:32:32 pm
...
I appreciate this would be a difficult migration process to acheive by hand, so will expedite getting my installer development back up and running ASAP (after a painful Win7 migration and loss of a hard drive, requiring retreival of much stuff from backups, ongoing process. ).

Jason

Jason:

Sorry for the painful rebuild following your hard drive death. I've migrated to Win7 Pro x64 (bit painful from XP) without any untoward damage. As for your testing request, I'm unqualified I fear ("aimerge" huh?). But it's now a new decade so I'm wondering how you're doing with an updated installer that will include optimized 6.09 Cuda?

[BTW I use a small 0.25 day cache so for me its no problem to drain it down prior to running your installer].

Applause, you have gotten through some things that most do not. There is a test of an new installer but it is not easy.
It will take some time to mature. It will be posted as it is ready.

Regards

ScitechGrid · « **Reply #10 on:** 15 Apr 2010, 01:46:22 pm »

v6.09 running well on my GTX275 + Win XP

Geek@Play · « **Reply #11 on:** 07 May 2010, 07:23:15 am »

In this message http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/forum_thread.php?id=54288&nowrap=true#992283

Near the bottom of this message is shown the app_info file that was created for this person by the v .35 installer. There are two sections labled for version 608. One is for plan_class cuda and the other is for plan_class cuda 23. Is the stated version 608 correct for both sections?

I thought version 609 equated to plan_class cuda 23 or am I wrong?

Richard Haselgrove · « **Reply #12 on:** 07 May 2010, 07:32:50 am »

Quote from: Geek@Play on 07 May 2010, 07:23:15 am

In this message http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/forum_thread.php?id=54288&nowrap=true#992283

Near the bottom of this message is shown the app_info file that was created for this person by the v .35 installer. There are two sections labled for version 608. One is for plan_class cuda and the other is for plan_class cuda 23. Is the stated version 608 correct for both sections?

I thought version 609 equated to plan_class cuda 23 or am I wrong?

As far at the SETI project itself is concerned, it really doesn't matter at all. Yes, if you run the stock applications, 608/cuda and 609/cuda23 is the way it'll turn out: but for people who use app_info, a show-stopper can be that Marius's ReScheduler application will only operate on tasks with a '608' version number. Until Marius can find the time to post an updated version, or let someone else have the source code to make the changes for him, they're stuck. Tagging everything with v608 is the lesser of two evils.

Geek@Play · « **Reply #13 on:** 07 May 2010, 08:26:19 am »

Thanks for the info Richard..............

Marius · « **Reply #14 on:** 07 May 2010, 02:52:04 pm »

Quote from: Richard Haselgrove on 07 May 2010, 07:32:50 am

Quote from: Geek@Play on 07 May 2010, 07:23:15 am

In this message http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/forum_thread.php?id=54288&nowrap=true#992283

Near the bottom of this message is shown the app_info file that was created for this person by the v .35 installer. There are two sections labled for version 608. One is for plan_class cuda and the other is for plan_class cuda 23. Is the stated version 608 correct for both sections?

I thought version 609 equated to plan_class cuda 23 or am I wrong?

As far at the SETI project itself is concerned, it really doesn't matter at all. Yes, if you run the stock applications, 608/cuda and 609/cuda23 is the way it'll turn out: but for people who use app_info, a show-stopper can be that Marius's ReScheduler application will only operate on tasks with a '608' version number. Until Marius can find the time to post an updated version, or let someone else have the source code to make the changes for him, they're stuck. Tagging everything with v608 is the lesser of two evils.

Interesting and kind of new to me. The rescheduler parses only the client_state.xml and it searches for all workunit with plan_class items to know if a unit is for cpu or gpu. It does not expect the new plan_class "cuda23", so everything marked for plan_class cuda23 (609) will internally be seen as a standard cuda application (no matter what version_num is specified).

Since i no longer have a nvidia at home, does somebody have an example client_state.xml with multiple plan_classes so i can take a look and test? (please email me at marius66 at home dot nl)

Thanks in advance,
Marius